I have been a CPA for over 30 years focusing on taxation. I have extensive experience with partnerships, real estate and high net worth individuals.
My ideology can be summarized at least metaphorically by this quote:
"I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper and the old men and old women warmer in the winter and happier in the summer." - Brendan Behan
Nobody I work for has any responsibility for what goes into this blog and you should make no inference that they approve of it or even have read it.

War Tax Resisters - Don't Call Them Frivolous

Seal of the United States Internal Revenue Service. The design is the same as the Treasury seal with an IRS inscription. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Despite my ability to find large amounts of humor in original source tax material, taxes are a serious matter. The IRS has been directed by Congress to stamp out frivolity in tax submissions. Code Section 6702 requires the Service to make a list of frivolous tax positions. There is some pretty wacky stuff on the list like the idea that you can cut your tax by writing “nunc pro tunc” on your return (They don’t say anything about “Ali ali oxen free”. Maybe you can try that). There is one item on the list of frivolous positions, that I don’t like to call frivolous:

The First Amendment permits a taxpayer to refuse to pay taxes based on religious or moral beliefs.

That is what Elizabeth Boardman was in US District Court over. Ms. Boardman has been at peace activism for a long time. She is an author of several books including “Taking A Stand: A Guide To Peace Teams And Accompanimnet Projects”. She went to Iraq to act as part of a peace team, where she tells me she met my good friend Tom Cahill. I asked Tom for a little more background on her, but his memory of her is a little hazy. Frankly, it is understandable. Tom is much more memorable than most people you will meet. Like the IRS, the District Court did not have much sympathy for her views. Here is some of the story:

When filing her federal tax returns for the 2007 and 2008 tax years, Plaintiff fully completed the returns with accurate information but remitted only about half of her federal income tax liability. In a letter attached to the tax returns, Plaintiff explained that “her conscience and religious beliefs would not allow her to pay the full amount due.” Plaintiff’s letter also offered evidence that the withheld funds were on deposit with a financial institution and maintained that she would pay the funds if they were allocated toward peaceful purposes.

Further correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant [IRS] resulted in Defendant stating that Plaintiff’s justification was frivolous and not supported by law. Once Plaintiff’s argument was deemed “frivolous,” the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (“TRHCA”) allowed Defendant to deny any additional administrative or judicial review. As a result, Plaintiff’s demand for a Tax Court determination was unsuccessful. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant misrepresented various aspects of the tax collection process and misconstrued Plaintiff’s statements. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s threats of imminent seizure compelled Plaintiff to pay her outstanding liability for the 2008 tax year.

…….Plaintiff also takes offense to the word “frivolous” being used to describe a taxpayer’s reliance on moral or religious grounds as a justification for refusing to pay their taxes. Although Plaintiff claims that she does not challenge the tax system or “seek to restrain assessment or collection of tax,” she does request a permanent injunction forcing Defendant to promulgate new procedures for collecting taxes. In doing so, Plaintiff “seeks to enforce the intent of Congress, which is to protect and preserve an established religious practice.”

The District Court was with the IRS.The Court has no doubt that ruling in Plaintiff’s favor would negatively impact Defendant’s established methods of assessing taxes. It is also clear that compelling Defendant to adopt procedures catering to the religious or moral views of every taxpayer would significantly burden tax collection. Indeed, the costs of administering the tax system may become prohibitively expensive, threatening the system’s integrity, if Defendant allocated tax revenue based on the individualized beliefs of each taxpayer. Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s suit challenges statutory framework pertaining to tax assessment and collection, and, if Plaintiff is successful, she would “impermissibly restrain and hamper [Defendant's] ability to assess and collect taxes.”

Ms. Boardman’s attorney, Robert Kovsky, thinks the District Court did not grasp their point. He wrote to me:

Our legal position is set forth in the Complaint and in our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Both documents are available on my website at www.kovsky.com To summarize the legal position: Elizabeth is maintaining a religious practice of war tax resistance similar to practices that have been carried on by many persons for many years. The practice requires filing of full and complete tax returns, accompanied by a refusal to pay in part or in whole for reasons based on religion or conscience. It is understood that the IRS will move to collect any unpaid amount, plus statutory costs and penalties. The resister feels compelled by religion or conscience to follow this route rather than to pay as of their own free will for war and weapons.

We contend that the practice of religious war tax resistance was given safe harbor in an Act of Congress in 1982 and has been recognized by the courts. It appears from the experience of Elizabeth, as alleged in the Complaint, that the IRS is now trying to suppress such practices. The policy of the IRS set forth on its website is to declare that such a practice is “frivolous.” We contend that Elizabeth’s practice is protected by the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. We contend that the IRS is required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to respect and accommodate the practice.We believe that the District Court did not properly address our contentions in its decision to dismiss the case and we have filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just today, the Court of Appeals filed a Time Schedule Order setting initial dates for the filing of briefs. As of now, our opening brief is due on or before April 8, 2013.

You may want to check out the briefs he provides in his link to get a better feel for the argument. I can understand the IRS not having a lot of patience with this activity, but then I always remember Henry David Throreau. Thoreau’s extremely influential work “Civil Disobedience” was inspired by a night he spent in the Concord jail after he refused to pay poll tax to protest the Mexican War. For more information on War Tax Resistance check this out.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I think “frivolous” works in describing the effort to use the “war” as the gimmick to keep from paying up.

I will try to browse further the references you suggest, Peter.

However, for now, let me put it this way.

As I read the article, it appeared the lady would be glad to pay all she owes if some bureaucrat would tell her her money is going to some worthy cause she approves of.

If she wants to use the 1st Amendment to explain her tax position, she should be the one to claim, as she well might and should in my opinion, that all of her tax money goes to some sweet cause she likes to support.

After all, can we really believe that she really believes that the Government takes her individual money and splits it up according to some statistical formula that results in $X.XX of her tax liability going to build tanks?

I think she needs to give it a rest and start claiming that she pays everything she owes and it all goes to some sweet cause she has some affections for and favors the government financing.

The question had to do with her connections to another activist and war protestor that is deceased and who had the same name; a woman who would have been old enough to be the mother of the person you claim to have recently spoke to.

I believe, based on her photo, that the Elizabeth Jelinek Boardman who sailed in a boat of medical supplies to Haiphong in 1967 is the Betty Boardman who lived in Massachusetts in the 1970s-80s, and died in NJ in 1996 at age 80: http://www.clamshellalliance.org/legacy/2010/02/16/in-memoriam-elizabeth-boardman/ Medford, NJ, is the location of a large Quaker continuing-care retirement community.

Thanks for the follou-up on that. Having a very common name myself I try to be sensitive to not mixing people up. One of the imposters, as I like to refer to them, lives in the next state, is about my age and in a pretty controversial case was accused of murdering his mother. When I angered an Amway true believer this was pointed out in the comments section

Do you think there is any truth to the rumor that Kent Hovind is in mourning over that recent district court decision in the Boardman case.

Had she won, Kent would have been able to waltz back into court, cite the Boardman case, and remind the Court that his theological position is that he did no wrong and that he has no income to tax.

Lawyers make it sound complicated sometimes, but the Court simplified it in concluding in the Boardman case:

———————–

CONCLUSION

As a matter of law, and for the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is accordingly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Because the Court does not believe that the defects of Plaintiff’s Complaint can be remedied though amendment, leave to amend is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.

In addition to the analogy to Kent Hovind, I think one can also be made to Kenneth Miller, the Beachy Amish businessman and minister who decided he should be allowed to engage in an international kidnapping plot as to Janet Jenkins daughter and not suffer any consequences.

Alas, as in the Boardman case, “as a matter of law” he was found guilty and is awaiting sentencing and the grand jury is awaiting his return to testify under immunity from further prosecution related to what he has to say about his plot and the co-conspirators.